Judge: Melvin D. Sandvig, Case: 25CHCV00287, Date: 2025-02-21 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 25CHCV00287 Hearing Date: February 21, 2025 Dept: F47
Dept. F47
Date: 2/21/25
Case #25CHCV00287
PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTION
Application for OSC & TRO filed on 1/28/25.
MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Lincoln Automotive Financial
Services
RESPONDING PARTY: Defendants Tiffany’s
Auto Collision, Inc.; State of California Department of Motor
Vehicles, Steven Gordon in
their Capacity as Director of DMV
RULING: The hearing is placed off calendar.
On 5/5/24, Plaintiff Lincoln Automotive Financial
Services’ (Plaintiff) assignor entered into a contractual lease agreement with
Maksim Vardanyan (Vardanyan) for the lease of a 2024 Lincoln Nautilus Truck (the
Vehicle) with a current market value of $52,825.00. After delivery of the vehicle, Vardanyan began
making payments to Plaintiff as required by the contract. Defendant Tiffany’s Auto Collision, Inc.
(Defendant) is a third-party mechanic shop. Defendant is not in privity of contract with
Plaintiff nor its assignor. At some
point, Defendant came into possession of the Vehicle through a request for
maintenance and/or work by Vardanyan. Plaintiff
became aware that Defendant was in physical possession of the vehicle when
Plaintiff received a Notice of Lien Sale from the Department of Motor Vehicles
dated 11/19/24. Thereafter, Plaintiff
demanded inspection of the vehicle within 72 hours, as provided by Civil Code
3068(b)(3). Defendant did not permit any inspection of the Vehicle and failed
to respond to the Plaintiff’s letter. As
of the filing of the application, Defendant has not allowed any inspection of
the Vehicle to occur nor responded to the demand letter.
A lien sale of the Vehicle is scheduled for 1/31/25. (Ahearn Decl., Ex.C). Therefore, on 1/27/25, Plaintiff filed this
action against Defendant; State of California Department of Motor Vehicles and
Steven Gordon in their Capacity as Director of DMV for Business Tort/Recovery
of Possession of Personal Property and Intentional Tort/Conversion.
On 1/28/25, Plaintiff filed the underlying ex parte
application for a temporary restraining order and an order requiring Defendant
to show cause why a preliminary injunction should not issue pending trial in
this action enjoining Defendant and Defendant’s employees agents, and persons
acting with Defendant or on its behalf, from selling Plaintiff’s property
through a Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) Lien Sale and/or otherwise
attempting to transfer ownership of Plaintiff’s Vehicle, a 2024 LINCOLN
NAUTILUS TRUCK, VIN: 5LMPJ8KA4RJ784375, LICENSE PLATE NUMBER: 9LYP516.
On 1/29/25, the Court granted the ex parte application
and set the hearing on the order show cause re preliminary injunction for
2/21/25. (See 1/29/25 Minute
Order; 1/29/25 TRO & OSC Re Preliminary Injunction).
On 2/7/25, Plaintiff filed 3 proofs of service showing
that: (1) on 2/3/25, State of California Department of Motor Vehicles was
personally served, through its agent for service of process, with summons and
complaint, the TRO & OSC Re Preliminary Injunction, among other documents;
(2) on 2/3/25, Steven Gordon in his/her capacity of
Director of DMV was served via substituted service with the same documents
with subsequent mailing on 2/4/25; and (3) on 2/4/25, Defendant Tiffany’s Auto
Collision Inc.’s agent for service of process was served with the same
documents via substituted service on 2/4/25 with subsequent mailing on 2/5/25.
The Court finds that the service of the moving papers was
not timely. With regard to service on
the State of California Department of Motor Vehicles, the documents were served
less than 16 court days before the 2/21/25 hearing date. CCP 1005(b).
The substituted service on Defendant Steven Gordon in his/her capacity
of Director of DMV and Defendant Tiffany’s Auto Collision, Inc. is also untimely
for the 2/21/25 hearing date. The
substituted service was not complete until the 10th day after
mailing. See CCP 415.20(a). As such, service on Gordon was not complete
until 2/14/25, 4 court days before the hearing date, and service on Tiffany’s
Auto Collision, Inc. was not complete until 2/15/25, 3 court days before the
hearing date. See CCP 1005(b).
No oppositions or other responses to the order to show
cause have been filed by defendants to cure the defect in notice. Therefore, the matter is placed off
calendar.
The Court notes that in violation of CRC 3.1110(f)(4) Plaintiff
has failed to electronically bookmark the exhibits attached to the declaration
filed in support of the application.
Counsel is warned that failure to comply with this rule in the future
may result in matters being continued so that papers can be resubmitted in
compliance with the rule, papers not being considered and/or the imposition of
sanctions.